Sc0tt
Regular Member
...Yeah yeah yeah I get it I F'D Up....
Last edited:
heil grammar!ummmmm..... I hate to point this out to you..... But, ..... Respectfully,..... And you are self-admittedly "bad"......
Embarrased = embarrassed
grammer = grammar
:lol:
I'm sorry, i just couldn't resist....
Why did you interject yourself into a situation that wasn't any of your business?
Why were you preparing to draw on an unarmed person?
We weren't there and couldn't read the signs the OP did. He didn't draw, but was prepared to if the need arose.
I don't know if the assault rose to the point where I'd've intervened as the OP did. However, if I felt there was a legitimate threat to the life or limb of another, I'd like to think that I'd have the stones to try to do something.
The OP measured his response and defused the situation without the need for escalation. That is good.
There was no indication in the OP's account that there was any deadly force being used and the proportionality was 3-1 against the "assaulter." The OP brandished and he was lucky the police gave him a pass.
Reread the account. The OP did not brandish. He increased his level of readiness.
Unless you think that releasing the holster lock or touching the firearm is brandishing. In that case, I suggest you look up brandishing. The word has a very clear meaning and what the OP said he did does not qualify as brandishing.
He "increased his level of readiness" without justification. In Virginia, the law says:
� 18.2-282. Pointing, holding, or brandishing firearm, air or gas operated weapon or object similar in appearance; penalty.
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured. However, this section shall not apply to any person engaged in excusable or justifiable self-defense. Persons violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor
In defining "brandishing" the Virginia code (as explained by my instructor on legal issues) can be an action as simple as pulling one's coat aside to reveal a handgun. Actually gripping a handgun is a clear intent to induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured. Brandishing is excusable IF the person is engaged in excusable or justifiable self-defense, both of which are legal terms that describe a situation where the brandisher is in actual fear of severe bodily harm or death. The OP's description of the situation does not, IMHO, rise to that level.
North Carolina statute:
Given ALL the circumstances of the encounter, I would have no problem finding the OP guilty of the above statute if sitting on a jury. From the OP's description of the incident, I fully believe he threatened the hothead and since it was three against one in a Wal Mart parking lot, when the "one" had not presented any weapons, I don't buy the "self defense" justification. This was not an incident that the OP accidentally found himself in - it was an incident that he purposely and willfully injected himself into.
All the police would have to do was ask the hothead, "did you see him reach for his gun?"
"Yes"
"did you think he was going to shoot you?"
"yes"
Case closed.
The OP put himself into a situation he had no business being in to begin with. That was the first act of escalation on the OPs part. What if the OP had felt the need to draw his weapon and shoot the hothead because the hothead did not turn around and leave when he put his hand on his gun? Three men against one unarmed assailant. Self defense? "I don't think so, Tim."
Especially when I am open carrying my gun I don't put my nose in business where it doesn't belong. I don't carry my gun to break up petty fights in Wal Mart parking lots. AND I certainly don't "ready" my gun to be drawn. If I put my hand on my gun and unsnap the retention device it's because I feel that my life is threatened and is only going to be part of the motion to draw my weapon, and unless the situation drastically changes in the next 2 seconds, a round is going to exit the barrel at high velocity. Somebody who says they are going to kill me, without presenting a means available to do so and when it is 3 against 1, warrants a 911 call.
An incident like this is almost justification for a Brady Campaigner to point to and say, "SEE! We told you so!"
The poster is NC.
Please cite case law or the code that defines brandish in the way you claim it does. (Preferably for NC, not for VA.)
The OP did not "grip" the firearm.
Sorry, your assertion fails on every point.
I have already provided the code section that provides the definition of brandishing. You did no such thing. You posted the VA code section outlawing brandishing, not the definition. The poster is in NC. Also, the only reference you made to a definition of brandishing was what you recollected from some lecture. Yeah, that's a good source! The attorney who instructed the class on Virginia firearm legality was quite specific regarding any display or touching one's weapon during an altercation in which there was not an excusable or justifiable reason to do so.
As for case law, consider:
"This Court has held, in connection with robbery, that "'the word "fear" . . . does not so much mean "fright" as it means "apprehension"; one too brave to be frightened may yet be apprehensive of bodily harm.'" Seaton, 42 Va. App. at 749, 595 S.E.2d at 14 (quoting 3 Wayne R. LaFave, Substantive Criminal Law § 20.3(d), at 187-88 (2d ed. 2003)) (emphasis in original).
In other words, "'[w]hen the pertinent test is cast in terms of a victim being put in "fear" of injury, it is not necessary that the victim be frightened; it is necessary merely that he be reasonably apprehensive of injury.'" Id. (quoting Charles E. Torcia, 4 Wharton's Criminal Law § 462, at 21 (15th ed. 1996)) (emphasis in original). The dispositive issue in this case, therefore, is whether there was sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Moon was reasonably apprehensive of bodily harm induced by Huffman brandishing the gun in her presence. This familiar standard gives full play to the responsibility of the trier of fact fairly to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts. It also ensures that we remain faithful to our duty not to substitute our judgment for that of the trier of fact, even were our opinion to differ.Seaton, 42 Va. App. at 747-48, 595 S.E.2d at 13 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). In light of the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that Moon's request of Huffman to put his gun away was sufficient evidence of Moon's requisite apprehension of bodily harm." (Emphasis mine.) (Cited from http://www.virginia1774.org/Page5.html)
I added the bolding to indicate why your cites aren't on point.
The OP says he put his hand on his firearm and the "assaulter" became apprehensive of bodily harm by the OP's brandishing of his firearm The OP said no such thing. [Again, I bolded the words that make you so wrong.] -- that's why he left the scene.
The laws on brandishing may vary from state to state. If this incident had happened in Virginia and the "assaulter" had filed a complaint, the OP would have been charged with brandishing. While there may not be specific code in NC regarding brandishing, that is exactly what he did and, in my opinion, unjustifiably so.
You might also see this forum's thread at http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...p-an-approaching-threat&p=1408884#post1408884 for more discussion on brandishing.